casual fans need to learn how to score a fight.....

[M Bison]

Borat was the aggressor in the first fight against Canelo, Pacquiao was the aggressor against Marquez, Sor Rungvisai was the aggressor against Estrada. Borat, Pacquiao, and Sor Rungvisai were excellent at blocking punches with their faces though so according to all of the f**ktards on here they won.

[Thuglife Nelo]

Moretti fancied 2 more rounds for GGG over Canelo. Had he been indecisive about a couple swing rounds he could’ve also had it a DRAW.

Don Trella, had he some swing rounds for either guy, STILL CLOSE, 7-5 either way, but equalized it a DRAW.

At this point, it’s already proven a chess match, means Canelo was well prepped for GGG. GGG fans coast on the idea that underperforming with Aboutfkntime’s point was good enough to win, as if Canelo and GGG were wearing head gear and GGG didn’t go into second gear. Remember everyone said “what is Canelo going to do when GGG has him on the ropes?” Many had GGG ko’ng Alvarez with fanboyism without really thinking or illustrating the 4 criteria - round by Round - if in the event it’s not the fight or game plan they had thought GGG would impose

So here comes Byrd, had she felt any insecurity given girls like Ross... she would’ve systematically also preplanned 116-112 at the get go. Had she scored it a Draw like Trella and everyone saying the judges favor Canelo then Byrd and Trella knew a majority Draw from the get go...

No, instead, I think Byrd simply wasn’t impressed with GGG whom literally sold himself and talked trash goal planning for years that when he finally stepped up with Caneo, he underperformed and she wasn’t impressed considering she knew GGG’s reputation with “power.”

I had it a Draw. I’m not afraid to admit that even though Canelo had the more accurate punching, I still think he didn’t do enough to win, and I thought GGG just pressed a jab with many missed attempts and allowing the smaller guy to capitalize on mistakes..

Draw was more than justified. Many GGG fans just can’t accept that.

[RightJabLikeZab]

It's perfectly fine to admit when the fighter you're attached to didn't do enough, or admit to understanding why people scored fights the way they did. I think that doesn't happen enough in boxing for lots of reasons. As long as we can all admit we're not watching fights impartially I'm perfectly alright with it.

[Nehnenqui]

Oooh, like I’m really gonna sit and watch a video of some mass shooter type weirdo explaining why Borat’s jab is like a power shot.

[aboutfkntime]

Its not about casuals learning how to score a fight, its about real Boxing fans who know how to do it but refuse to see a fight for how it pans out. A large amount of Boxing fans cant accept what is happening to their favourite fighters if they are losing so throw honesty out of the window and start trying to find other reasons to give their fighter the rounds. And that is aimed at fans of all fighters, not just these PBC fools who try to explain away PBC favoured robberies every other week when one of their fighters is exposed again.

there is some truth in that..... but largely, no

dumbass casual fans have been running around attempting to use compubox as justification to insist that Golovkin won..... by saying, landed punches are the only official scoring criteria

which as you and I know..... is utter bullshlt, and a long way from the truth

it is either ******ity, or dishonesty..... or both.....

..... then of course, they will immediately flip-flop when it suits..... "Canelo ran in the first fight"..... "Golovkin boxed masterfully in the rematch" LOL

[aboutfkntime]

Dudes on here calling other dudes on here casuals is pretty special. Perhaps the TS should reveal his world shaking credentials so we can bow down in awe of his superior knowledge.

Opinions are like assholes, as they say, and there's an awful lot of very big opinions on NSB.

so..... you do not think that landed punches are the only official scoring criteria.....?

or, do you..... ?

listen dude, if you KNOW how to score a fight..... then perhaps you could help some of the guys who clearly do not..... if not, then you are in the right place LMAO

you seem to object to the word " casuals "..... but, what else should I call someone who runs around insisting that they know how to score a fight..... but then immediately prove that they do not..... dumbass?, casual?, ..... take your pick

why should I treat those people with respect..... ?

you don't see me running around giving people medical advice..... or telling physicists how to build a rocket..... so why do those dumbasses run around talking bollocks about things they know nothing about ?

[aboutfkntime]

The BBBofC provides even less in the way of precise guidelines, leaving very much up to the discretion of the individual judge.

This laconic passage in the RULES OF BOXING is pretty much it:

3.31 Points will be awarded:-

For “attack??direct clean hits with the knuckle part of the glove of either hand to any part of the front or side of the head or body above the belt.

The “belt?is defined as an imaginary line drawn across the body from the top of the hip bones.

For “defence??guarding, slipping, ducking or getting away from an attack. Where contestants are otherwise equal the majority of points will be given to the one who does most leading off or displays the better style.

there is no discretion, those rules are perfectly clear LMAO

FACT: defence is valid scoring criteria

the fact that casual-fans are not aware of that..... or try to minimize that..... is a perfect portrait of ******ity

[aboutfkntime]

Ok, so you don't know how to score a boxing match!

The reason why "clean, hard punches landed" is at the top of of the scoring criteria is because it supersedes the criteria listed below it.

They only become factors if the number of clean, hard punches landed appears to be the same for both fighters.

Forget the compubox terminology which labels every punch which isn't a jab a "power punch". The only way to objectively assess the power of a punch is to observe the effect it has on the opponent.

Jabs, hooks, crosses, whatever, should all be scored equally if they land cleanly and have the same effect on the fighter taking them.

Facial damage inflicted is not a scoring criteria.

And don't bother responding to this with more crap about GGG and Canelo, because I'm not even reading any of that stuff from you,

Stick to the point of the discussion.

kid, two pages ago..... you insisted that effective aggression, defence, and ring generalship, are not even a valid scoring factors..... unless the scoring punches landed are exactly even

which is absolutely and utterly ridiculous

you, along with the other casuals..... need to realize one thing.....

this thread was not created to provide a platform where you muppets can change the rules as you see fit..... and eventually determine a suitable scoring method that fits your silly agenda..... this thread was created to teach you dumb cvnts how to correctly apply the existing rules..... which are fine

listening to casuals grumble unhappily about scoring for defense, really does make for a humor-filled afternoon LMAO

you guys are clueless about the sweet science

[aboutfkntime]

Defense, ring generalship, and effective aggression all help to tell the story and get a guy into position - and that story and position is landing punches on the opponent. Nothing else matters.

It seems unfortunately that some on here want to change the rules of the sport in efforts to have their man win a fight they didn't win...not a huge deal just a good example that for some on here they have their self-interests so tied up in/against some fighters, that they have a vested interest in finding ways to score it for/against certain guys. I think some on here are actually blind to their biases and don't score it badly intentionally.

From what I've seen, anyone analyzing the GGG Canelo fights who scores those for Canelo almost universally dismisses the work GGG did with his jab. Which is a great scoring punch almost every time GGG lands, which is very often.

To not score and outright dismiss nd even mock the jab for GGG shows a lot of people on here aren't really keeping it real here...you would then also have to do that for every fight you watch if one was attempting to keep consistent criteria...and what crazy results that would bring lol. All of a sudden Floyd's fights for example would be scored completely differently.

To use those 2 fights as a good litmus test....Canelo fought well in parts of each fight...he was in quite a few rounds...but in both fights, round in and round out he was getting outworked and GGG had quite a few rounds in each fight where he ran away with the round, on activity and punch damage.

The reasoning many seem to use to justify a win for Canelo in those fights generally has nothing really to do with scoring a boxing match...and also changes from fight 1 to fight 2...they are unfortunately searching for any reason for why their guy won.

Again the only thing that matters is who is landing more and better punches. If we all let that be our guide in scoring fights we would get a lot better cards...and would be able to almost universally agree on 95% of fight decisions...95% of the time there is only one winner.

Peace bro be well

like I said earlier...... if the 4 official scoring criteria are too difficult for you to judge..... simply watch lower-level fights, that are shorter, less technical, and often do not require the judges

FACT: these are the ONLY 4 official scoring criteria

* clean hard punching
* effective aggression
* defence
* ring generalship

it has been that way forever

anyone who is unaware of that fact..... or who wants to change that fact..... or who wants to ignore that fact..... is a casual-fan idiot

case-in-point, this thread..... where the biggest idiots are lining up to advise everyone which parts of the official scoring criteria are important..... which parts are less important..... and which parts should be completely ignored LMAO

most/all of the folks who have made " suggestions " in this thread, literally had no idea how to score a fight..... and have tarred themselves with their own silliness

[aboutfkntime]

Originally Posted by Chrismart View Post
A thread on correct fight scoring becomes kind of obsolete when facial damage, cuts and bruising starts being talked up as a criteria. Or even as a example of a criteria met.

Well said Chris...good post.

I would love if your post could serve as a mirror for some on here...but unfortunately I feel it will go overlooked by those who most need to see it.

it is literally insane to suggest that a judge will not watch a fighter to see how he reacts in order to gauge how effective a particular punch was..... and damage will most certainly be part of that decision

nobody suggested that facial damage is a scoring factor

it is literally RIDICULOUS to suggest that damage will have no bearing in a judges mind

you guys are absolutely clueless

this is the fight game you pvssies, suggesting that damage has no bearing is beyond ridiculous